Fed. Dist. Court in NM Remand Cell Tower Siting Dispute After Finding Commission Failed to Make Findings Based on Substantial Evidence under the TCA

This post was authored by Sam Bifulco, Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center

Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless) sought a special use permit to build a cell phone tower on private property in the Town of Mesilla, New Mexico.  Defendants, Town of Mesilla and its Board of Trustees, denied the application for the special use permit which led to this action in the United States District Court, District of New Mexico.

Cellco Partnership  had  submitted  an  application  to  build  a  65-foot  cell  phone  tower  on  private property. They justified the need for the tower by explaining the expansion of services is required to best serve the nearby communities. The Town’s Planning, Zoning, and Historical Appropriateness Commission (PZHAC) received several letters in opposition to the proposal on the grounds that the tower would lower property values, disrupt scenic views, and health concerns.

After the PZHAC public hearing at which time it considered the plaintiff’s application, the board voted unanimously  against  the  project.  The  commission  made five  findings  of  fact  which explained: (1) the commission had jurisdiction over the request, (2) the zoning code allows this type  of  use  in  Rural  Farm  zones,  (3)  the  tower  would  be  out  of  character  with  the  Town’s comprehensive plan, (4) a negative impact would be created by the construction of the tower, and (5)  the  tower  would  not  be  beneficial  to  the  Town.  The plaintiff’s  appealed  the  decision  to  the Board  of  Trustees.  The  Board  of  Trustees  affirmed  the  commission’s  decision,  and  denied  the application  on  the  basis  of  several  code  violations  including  use,  height,  and  other  compliance concerns.

The plaintiff brought this action to federal court alleging the denial of the application in question violated  the  Telecommunications  Act  (TCA),  a  federal  statute  which  regulates  the  placement, construction,  and  modification  of  wireless  facilities  by  local  governments.  Specifically, Cellco Partnership argues that this denial conflicts with two provisions of the TCA which, “require that any  decision  by  a  local  government  ‘to  deny  a  request  to  place,  construct,  or  modify  personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record,’” and that, “local governments must not make decisions that ‘prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.’” The court utilized a substantial evidence standard to analyze the above referenced provisions. A substantial evidence standard is one which looks at how a reasonable mind might view the conclusion of the decisionmaker.

The United States District Court determined that the three reasons the Board of Trustees provided in  their  written  decision  denying  the  plaintiff’s  application  were  not  supported  by  substantial evidence and that the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgement on its claim that the decision failed to  comply  with  the  Telecommunications  Act.  The  court  remanded  the  case  to  back  to  the municipality for further proceedings.

Cellco Partnership v. Town of Mesilla, 2021 WL 5578871 (D. New Mexico 2021).